Next time, just call a log a log

Re: “B.C. moves to reduce raw log exports,” Dec. 6.

Upon reading this article, I was struck by the concept of “raw.” “Raw” may refer to something that is not cooked.

I suspect that these logs are not welldone, or medium, or dare I say, mediumrare, as with a beef steak. On the other hand, “raw” could also refer to a part of the body that is red and painful, as from an abrasion.

Now, are the logs referred to in this article uncooked, or have they suffered an abrasion?

Granted, a log, which is a piece of a tree bole produced by sawing, could suffer an abrasion, either from the sawing or being moved from the forest, and thus be diagnosed as “raw.”

It is also possible that the logs in question are raw in the sense that they are uncooked. After all, a log may be “cooked” in hot water or steam, in order to soften the fibres to facilitate peeling to produce veneers, either for plywood or finishing veneers.

Some zealots would like to consider a log, destined for export, is a “raw” log. I suspect that they have not considered whether the log is uncooked, or has suffered an abrasion.

Rather, they would most likely consider a “raw” log as a log that has not undergone further manufacturing processes, such as sawing to produce lumber, or peeling to produce veneer, or splitting to produce shakes and shingles.

However, if a log has undergone a further manufacturing process, is it still considered a “log”? At what point does a “raw” log become a log? If a “raw” log is deemed to be a product not to be exported, is a log deemed to be a product which may be exported?

Given that the use of the term “raw” when referring to a log could be subject to misinterpretations, would it not be more appropriate, and dare I say, precise and accurate, to simply refer to things as they are?

After all, and to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, “a log is a log is a log.”

John Stephen

Retired Professional Forester View Royal